Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

"Aha! Google Scholar is free. SciFinder is paid. If Google Scholar wins out, SciFinder loses. They can't sue Google for making information free, but they can sue for trademark. Good luck, ACS. I think you're going to need it."

ACS will win because it has trademark for the name which is a name for a scientific search engine.

If there was a homework&tutoring service "Private Scholar" or a academia singles service "Lonely Scholar" and ACS went after it, if would be stupid and ACS would lose.

Kellogs successfully prevented Chevron from using a tiger as a convenience store food maskot because the cartoon tiger looked a lot like the one on the box of cornflakes. (If the tiger was used to sell gasoline or motoroil it would be OK).

On the free vs. fee-based controversy: unlike Google, Scifinder Scholar abstracts all chemistry and biology journals and chemical formulas there. With many leading journals producing thousands of pages every month each and hundreds of journals indexed, it costs enormous amount of man-time to keep the database up-to date. Maybe modern search technology can make the database building process cheaper. But there is no good way to index the structural formulas. Someone (with degree in chemistry) has to read the article, understand what it means and enter the chemicals, reactions and keywords one at the time.

Step 1: Instantly assume any trademark dispute of any kind is completely meritless without looking at the actual issues involved or even reading the article.

Anyone who took the trouble to read the article, the ACS's page (which I quoted in part because I did read the article) and Google's faq (just go to their Google Scholar page and click on the link) would see quite quickly the following:

The ACS is going to lose big time in terms of paid subscriptions

The Google service will allow for "Open Access" and self-publishing of peer-reviewed research, again kicking the ACS in the butt

The ACS does not own the word "Scholar"

The ACS is scared shitless

The ACS, instead of trying to compete on merits, or evolve their product, is pretty much admitting that they're behind the tech curve by doing a slap suit

Hey, maybe its time for someone to come out with a product that lets you do research on science fiction. We'll call it "SciFi Scholar". And let the ACS give us free publicity!!!

In fact, I suggest that Google come out with a "Google SciFi Scholar" (unless they want to throw some $$$ my way, in which case I'd be more than happy to help out).

No way. I'm a chemist, a member of ACS, I've used scifinder scholar, and I've used google scholar. They're not the same thing, they shouldn't be confused, and furthermore google scholar doesn't provide fulltext access to ACS journals. So there is no effect upon subscriptions. Nor is there any real competition - the products don't even really serve the same purpose. If anyone should be scared of google scholar, it's ISI, makers of Web of Science/Knowldedge, the worst search of all time.

NBo, the dictionary is NOT copyrighted. Not even the "Webster's" is copyrighted - the term "Webster's Dictionary" no longer has copyright protection, so you can publish a dictionary and call it "Joe Blow's Webster's Dictionary" if you want.

Copyright protects the expression of an idea, it doesn't mean the idea is unique, only that the expression is original. So if I sat down and wrote my own dictionary using my own wordings for the definitions, I could certainly claim copyright on it. That's in fact what dictionary companies do... they basically rewrite definitions to publish new editions that are protected by copyright even if the older editions run out of copyright protection. Same thing happens with translations of old Latin and Greek works

Easy enough in the information age to weed out spurious definitions... mind you, if you find the same "spurious" definition in 10 different dictionaries who all copied from the same source, it can be argued that its now part of the language.

Speaking of which, we've got competing definitions of "Bling Bling" and "Bling" going on around in my neck of the woods.

Map publishers also introduce deliberate errors (showing small towns that don't exist) to keep people from ripping them off.

Which is small consolation if you're stuck in the desert and the small town that you hoped to get food, gas, and water from turns out to be a "watermark" device.

What would be fun would be to set up a town where one of these phantom towns exists, and then claim ownership to it. Write your own land deeds, etc. When people bitch, saying the town doesn't exist and you're just stealing t

Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

As such, the portions of dictionary contents that are not sufficiently unique (contain little or no authorship value) are NOT copyrightable. Changing the font or page size isn't a copyrightable act of authorship.

Changing the font or page size isn't a copyrightable act of authorship.

But dictionaries are much more than that. Defintions change over the years, for example. If you take two dictionaries by two different people, the definitions of a given word will be expressed differently, and may actually be slightly different.

Defintions of words are *not* merely immutable facts.

A list of the words in a dictionary probably isn't copyrightable. But the dictionary itself (and the definitions inside) certain

Dictionaries do fit the criteria. They owe their existence to previous dictionaries, which are no longer under copyright. You might want to do some research on how dictionaries came about - they're not exactly new. The "original authorship" for most definitions is in the public domain. As for the rest, a definition is a fact, and as such, even an updated definition is not copyrightable.

Claiming copyright and actually having a copyrightable right are two different things, as SCO is finding out.

Written by Groucho Marx, with references to genetics, lawyers who are idiots, etc... you'd think he was posting on/.

Favourite quote:

Even if you plan on releasing your picture, I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don&#146;t know whether I could, but I certainly would like to try.

Makes it quite clear that "confusion" is a necessary element, and is funny at the same time.

The name is fairly obvious for a product such as this, but not that obvious. I'm surprised Google allowed such a clash of names to occur, especially with such related products. I imagine it'll get settled out of court.

But when someone uses a trademark similar to ours, we have no choice but to take action&#151;to protect the goodwill that we have built over the years and to prevent the likelihood of confusion in the marketplace.

What goodwill - the general public never heard of them. Google's product, on the other hand, is aimed at the general public - not the same product in either design or use. So there's no possibility of conmfusion.

Furthermore, the names are not that similar. Looks like the next trend in marketing:
Pimp your product by suing

Maybe the general public hasn't heard of SciFinder Scholar, but I and most of my colleagues in the lab use it almost daily. I'd wager most every physics/chemistry/biomed science grad student has used it at one time or another, as long as their institution pays for it (and I've not been to one that doesn't). <sarcasm> Gee, I can't imagine how anybody would confuse Google's science publication search service called Scholar with the ACS's science publication search service called SciFinder Scholar. </

As you point out, people just call it SciFinder.
So, if google had called it Google SciFinder,... maybe. But even then, it's not enough to cause confusion in anyone's mind (at least anyone who's likely to use the product).

The article says "over 1000 institutions", which is nowhere near the majority of institutions world-wide. Not even a significant amount.

And, as I pointed out, it's not aimed at the same market (subscription to a select group vs non-subscription to the general public).

Nor does it limit itself to the subset that the ACS limits itself to. Again, no "trading on the value of the name,. etc"

SciFinder "might" enjoy some protection, since it's not a generic word. "Scholar" does not. No more than General Motors can keep anyone else from using the word "Motor" in their product name.

The ACS is pimping their service with this lawsuit - hope that Google wins with prejudice.

Unfortunately, I don't think you understand trademark law as well as you think. Considering that the service each company offers is effectively the same, the fact that their target markets are slightly different isn't enough to negate the trademark violation. If Lindows bore enough similarity to Microsoft Windows to be a violation, Google is almost certainly in the wrong here.

How widely known a trademark is has absolutely zero bearing on it's enforcability. Google has a legal responsibility to vet the name

I can't believe that McDonalds have trademarked the phrase "I'm lovin' it" (plus a dozen over translations of the phrase in other languages)... that is just so wrong.

It sounds stupid and trivial, but remember the frame of reference for trademarks. If I start my own fast food restaurant chain and use "I'm lovin' it" as a slogan, I think it is fair for McDonald's to sue me (and win) for trademark infringement. My use of the slogan would easily cause confusion with customers. Maybe they think my restaurant is sanctioned or supported by McDonald's when it is not.

If I started an amusement park and used that slogan, McDonald's would have a tough time getting me to stop unless I was also infringing other trademarks (e.g. the entrance to the park was a pair of golden arches).

So substitute the word "copyright" for "trademark" in my post, and the argument is still the same.

And still misguided. There ARE limitations to what you can claim a trademark in. Someone CAN open an amusement park using "I'm loving it" and not infringe McDonald's BECAUSE they are marketing different consumer goods. That's the existing law today. Yeesh. But what McDonald's would sue under is Trademark dilution, a completely different cause of action. However, they would probably lose because "Mc" is a famou

Seems to me that, in some cases at least, only "limited" copyrights should be granted. For example, McDonald's could be granted a copyright on the phrase "I'm Lovin' It" as it is used for a fast-food restaurant (or even any restaurant).

ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!

People! This is a trademark, not a copyright! The two are different! (And patents are different too.) The three are often confused, but all three are different, with different rules and laws applying to each one. Stop confusing them!

...and they know that they don't have to actually win a lawsuit in order to put their victim out of business...

However, there are some lawyers who will look at a case and if they think they can win easily, take it to help the little guy and themseves because they'll get the attorney's fees from the big company.

although i highly doubt they will win their side of the dispute, seems like a great publicity stunt for them and their pay-to-use service;) plus, their service is only a subset of google's service, so really it is just a clash of appropriate titles. can't google just scratch the name "google scholar"?

This is absolute madness. Since when is the word "scholar" in any way reserved for the ACS? If you use a generic word in your product, don't be complain when others use the same word, otherwise you are just plain naive.

The article indicates the basis of the suit is that Google Scholar infringe upon SciFinder Scholar trademark. Granted that Google Scholar appears to do more or less what SciFinder Scholar do (minus the fee.)

But I doubt anyone would confuse the word Google and SciFinder. If their entire suit hinge on the word Scholar, I think ACS is facing an uphill battle.

But I doubt anyone would confuse the word Google and SciFinder. If their entire suit hinge on the word Scholar, I think ACS is facing an uphill battle.

I disagree. Google, like Microsoft, has been known to buy up companies and incorporate them into their core online service. A person who wanted to use the ACS Scholar service might see the Google service, and think, "great, I was going to pay for it but now Google bought it and is offering it for free". Now that probably won't happen too much, but it's

The real problem here is that you can trademark a word in common use, like "scholar". Since the ACS did exactly that, roughly 6 years ago, they have no choice but to go after Google (or else have their own trademark claims painfully diluted, or maybe just nullified).

I don't much like what's happening here, but if I were Google, I'd be strongly considering just changing the name of my service. (IANAL, but it really looks like Google will have an uphill battle here.)

You can trademark a term in general use, or generic term, for your product - but if the product itself is naturally described by means of the trademarked term then you may lose certain exclusive rights protected by trademark. That is why MS does not have exclusive rights to "Office" or "Windows", those are natural terms applied to those products. 'Scholar' as a term for a search assistant is probably not generic enough when applied to this product - librarian probably would be though.

'Scholar' as a term for a search assistant is probably not generic enough when applied to this product - librarian probably would be though.

Well, yes, but 'Google Scholar' isn't called that because it's a search assistant. The name derives from the fact that it is intended for use by scholars, and searches across scholarly journals, conferences, and other academic publications.

Sure the domain is scholarly, but the action involves organization and search. The court might wind up viewing the subject matter as more important than the actual function of the product, who knows - but my instinct says that 'scholar' is not a generic term for a product like this.

but my instinct says that 'scholar' is not a generic term for a product like this.

There's no requirement for the term to be descriptive of the function of the product for it to be in generic use. "Business Class" seating on airplanes describes larger-than-coach-but-smaller-than-1st-class seats and it draws its name from the specific customer it's aimed at: businessmen. Google Scholar likewise draws its name from its intended user: scholars.

if I were Google, I'd be strongly considering just changing the name of my service.

and if I were Google, I'd put my "don't be evil" motto and my billions of dollars to work by defending my use of a generic word. Microsoft was so afraid of "Windows" being ruled generic that they paid-off Lindows $20mil to go away. Google would be being "evil" (for their shareholders) if they likewise bowed down.

The field of scientific research and related services is, of course, open to all," said Flint Lewis, ACS's secretary and general counsel, in a statement. "But when someone uses a trademark similar to ours, we have no choice but to take action--to protect the goodwill that we have built over the years and to prevent the likelihood of confusion in the marketplace."

No, it's not. Increasingly, high quality journals and research articles are kept hidden away from the general public by restrictive copyrights,

This is the first time I've seen Google Scholar. After a few minutes playing around, it seems the search engine gives the author's name much higher precidence in returning results than anything else. Thus, I had to search for "warp drive" [google.com] before I could make the keywords match an article's title or content.

(And believe you me, I never expected there to be so much serious research on warp theory out there. I need to try "holodeck" next.)

I'm sorry, Word Thief® is a registered trademark of the American Plagarists Guild. Unauthorized use is, in an acknowledged irony, forbidden.

If you wish to avoid lawsuits, you may join the Guild. Just send us a photocopied Newspaper Guild/Communications Workers of America membership form with a check made out to cash. (We couldn't be bothered to come up with our own form, and over 90% of our members have professional access to the NG/CWA form anyway . . . )

From the ACS lawyer:..."But when someone uses a trademark similar to ours, we have no choice but to take action--to protect the goodwill that we have built over the years and to prevent the likelihood of confusion in the marketplace."

Sounds like this lawyer is spouting his basic litigation script and is getting ready to go to trial.

These guys have been doing this stuff for six years and I'm sure almost nobody here has heard of them. I doubt seriously there will be any "confusion" in the marketplace o

A subscription to one of their journals is OUTRAGEOUS. Our library has over 50 grand a year set aside for ACS journals. A chemist friend joked with me saying that some of the titles never even get read while in the periodical room.

Scientific citations are big business with players deep in the trenches. Thomsonisi [thomsonisi.com] sells the citation indexes, I believe (and endnote). ACS controls vast citation and manuscript papers. I hope Google is able to open up the field a bit, but it is going to take some court battles, I'm sure.

Several months ago there was a mini-scientific scandal when it was discovered that the former director of the American Chemical Society had been making $750,000/year and had a private chauffeur and limo, paid of course from ACS funds, which a large part derive from journal subscription fees and fees for things like like their 'scholar' service. If free services Google can take over the citation business from ACS and ISI, and the Public Library of Science can take over journal publishing, then I won't weep t

ACS isn't suing Google over their service, it's over the use of the word "Scholar".
I am aware of that, but I was (hopefully) providing some insight into why this field can be so quick to sue. Google is stepping into a hornets nest and this just the beginning.

As a scientist, I think that this is a really cool. I have been wondering how long it would take Google to come out witih something like this. The current searching provided by the NCBI via PubMed is woefully inadequate. Scholar not only finds the relevant papers, it also tells you how many citations each has, which is very important when deciding the impact of a paper.

However, Scholar does highlight the problem with much of the Scientific literature. If you do a search, and find a paper of inter

This letter is an instruction to cease and desist immediately in the following activities: 1st, your use of the word society. We at the Language Nazi Society have copyrighted the use of the term "Society" and will not tolerate the dillution of our trademarks by your use of this term. 2nd, your use of the term Chemical. As we have trademarked the entire dictionary, any other words you use can only be interpreted as an infringement on our rights. 3rd, the practice of writing letters as this also infringes on our dictionary tradmarks...

I thought you couldn't trademark common words (e.g. "Windows"). Microsoft needed many attempts and lots of money, and it's still basically "Microsoft Windows", "Microsoft Word", and let's not mention "Excel", which they didn't seem to trademark at all until it was a little late.

As a user of SciFinder Scholar I really don't think that ACS should be trying to draw a comparison between their product and google's scholar.

SciFinder is terrible. The UI is non-consistent with the standard windows suite, cf to google's wonderful UI. SciFinder is also ugly as a dog (a pug at that).
It's slow as a dog, cf to google's speed.
Tell it to save to results and all you get is unprintable ascii characters.
Performing a search is painful task with poor boolean support.

On the whole scifinder is poor product that I hope is supersceded with google's scholar.

--
A Commentary on 'The Hare and the Tortise'
In reality the hare would have beaten the pants off the tortise in a
race, rarely does slow and steady win the race. Instead it is the fast
hare capable of the leaps and bounds of modern thinking that will win
the race. This fable is told to encourage fat stupid children.

I wish people would get over this notion that something like this is a "subscription vs. free", implying that Google is doing charitable work. Whether their service is advertising supported or a loss leader, they are maximizing return on investment for their stock holders. Google Scholar may be "free", just like your Yellow Pages may be free, but it's still a product. And Google will go aggressively after people who may be violating their trademarks.

However, in this particular case, I think the dispute is silly just because of the names: "SciFinder Scholar" and "Google Scholar" are not confusingly similar.

I'm a dues paying ACS member, have been for 10 years. I have never once used Scifinder scholar, I have found the ACS literature searching to "suck" and I avoid using their site. "pubmed" is much better.

The main problem with any of these is that you can find abstracts, but generally have to pay $25 dollars for the PDF. What bugs me about that is much of the research is publically funded, why should the general public have to pay for the paper when we funded the research?

Perhaps Google should have searched for "scholar" before they decided to name their new progeny? It is the 8th result in the search, after all.

You're kidding, right?

Fine. If you are willing to allow this shit to continue and turn a blind eye to corporate extortion, go ahead. Be my guest. But if you are on the business end of one of these disputes, you had better not come crying to the EFF, ACLU, or any other organization that helps people protect their rights and freedoms.

It's a big deal because you presume that ACS "owns" the term "scholar" when applied to a literature search service. ACS's term, I believe, is actually "SciScholar" and it's a desktop (vs web-based tool). IMO, that is plenty of difference to invalidate legal action.

What I resent, being in business myself, is every idiot that tries to make money on a legal technicality versus working to creat something that a customer actually cares about. Patent and copyright legal fights raise the cost of goods and hu